This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Consenting to do one thing doesn't make you "consent" to all the possible consequences.

Actually it does. Sometimes people are so stupid that you have to put it in writing though. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sex is fun. Skydiving is fun. Recreational sex should have a statement of liability just to help those with low IQs along.

2) ASSUMPTION OF RISK. I know and understand the scope, nature and extent of the risks involved in the activities covered by this Agreement and that some dangers cannot be foreseen. I understand that these risks include, but are not limited to: equipment malfunction or failure to function; defective or negligent design or manufacture of equipment, improper or negligent parachute packing or assembly; improper or negligent operation or use of the equipment; carelessness of negligence of skydivers/parachutists, instructors, JumpMasters, pilots or ground crew; improper or negligent instruction or supervision. I voluntarily, freely, and expressly choose to incur all risks associated with the activities covered by this agreement, understanding that those risks may include bodily and personal injury, damage to property, disfigurement or death. I voluntarily and freely choose to incur such risks and take responsibility therefore.

Recreational sex should have a statement of liability just to help those with low IQs along.

I agree. People shouldn't be able to deny liability for something that was clearly their choice. If they say they don't know any better, now they know. If they say they can't be liable for a deliberate decision they made, then they're idiots and should have to suffer the consequences because they've been forewarned and have no excuse.

Actually it does. Sometimes people are so stupid that you have to put it in writing though. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.[/INDENT]

It's not "put in writing for stupid people". That's put in writing to avoid being sued.

That's not consent on a philosophical level, that's legal consent.

Do people who fuck sign a contract? No? Then no legal consent to anything in particular.

Now go on and write papers that you'll force everyone past puberty to sign. If the paper says that we understand the risk of pregnancy, and that abortion is an option, I'll sign them. If it says that I understand the risk of pregnancy, and that abortion isn't an option, fuck your papers. It's back to illegal sex and illegal abortions then.

It's not "put in writing for stupid people". That's put in writing to avoid being sued.

That's not consent on a philosophical level, that's legal consent.

Do people who fuck sign a contract? No? Then no legal consent to anything in particular.

Now go on and write papers that you'll force everyone past puberty to sign. If the paper says that we understand the risk of pregnancy, and that abortion is an option, I'll sign them. If it says that I understand the risk of pregnancy, and that abortion isn't an option, fuck your papers. It's back to illegal sex and illegal abortions then.

You have a difficult time with big picture concepts. Why does a release of liability exist? Beyond some simple written policy I mean. There is a fundamental reason the a legal disclaimer is needed that goes beyond simply "the law says so." People like to justify killing babies because the law says so, and if anyone mentions the reasons behind the law they writhe in pain and scream "Keep your damn God out of this!"

It's an impressive emotional defense, but not rational. It should be obvious what a double-standard you express when you fight for a "right to choose" (a moral value), and fight against a "right to life" by screaming "MORALS ARE BAD, THERE IS NO GOD, MY BELIEF WINS!!!"

It should be obvious what a double-standard you express when you fight for a "right to choose" (a moral value)

The right to choose for yourself. Not the right to force anyone else to have an abortion.

But please. Do try to argue against the right to choose. I bet you can't. I bet you can only argue against the right to make this choice. Or some choices. Not choices in general. (Well, unless you're a fascist of course, I wouldn't want to deny you that option.) And don't worry, I too, argue against the right of people to make some choices, choices that would harm me, in particular.

So I think we actually share that moral value (people should be free, which can only be translated by "people have a right to make choices"), we merely disagree on the limitations of that right.

The fact that I talk about right to choose and you about a right to live doesn't matter, because we both agree that these two rights are important. We merely disagree on how they apply to a particular case.

You have a difficult time with big picture concepts. Why does a release of liability exist? Beyond some simple written policy I mean. There is a fundamental reason the a legal disclaimer is needed that goes beyond simply "the law says so." People like to justify killing babies because the law says so, and if anyone mentions the reasons behind the law they writhe in pain and scream "Keep your damn God out of this!"

It's an impressive emotional defense, but not rational. It should be obvious what a double-standard you express when you fight for a "right to choose" (a moral value), and fight against a "right to life" by screaming "MORALS ARE BAD, THERE IS NO GOD, MY BELIEF WINS!!!"

And using God to justify morals is rational? Using God to justify legislation is rational?

Ooooooookaayyyy.... To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Morals are subjective. If you're raised that cannibalism is okay you don't have an aversion to it. If you're raised that rape is okay then you have unpunished rape. Or have you never heard of countries where rapists can marry their victims to avoid prosecution so long as the family, who is afraid their daughter cannot be married to a man of worth because she is no longer a virgin, consents. Hmmm, jail or marriage where I can also legally beat my wife... There is no choice. While my morals scream this is wrong, it's not my society and therefore not my place to judge that it's wrong. The difference between the pro-choice and anti-abortion movement is that one side wants a choice where the cells that medically cannot feel pain and aren't even developed enough to be considered a person because again, medically, it's not viable can be removed from the mother. Yes, the potential life is gone. I don't see the problem considering I see the state the foster care system is already in and the number of parents who can't cope with the children they already have and adoption, is not the perfect solution despite your beliefs and arguments to the contrary. It was the right choice for me and my daughter even now she knows I was young and it was the best choice for us both. Her parents are wonderful people and I'm forever grateful they chose to love her and raise her when I could not. However, I know what anguish I went through with the constant wondering and worrying for 20 years. Every day for twenty years. I know that she went through a lot with questions and wondering every day. I know there is some resentment even though logically it was the best decision. I've counseled girls who have chosen adoption who later committed suicide because they could not handle not knowing. Open adoptions are not always a great option either for any of the parties. It's been shown to cause some adoptive parents to be unable to bond with the child because "the real parents" are around.

Do I think abortion is the correct option for me? No. I've had to make that choice before and it's not something I can do personally. The option is not an option for me. Had I gotten pregnant from rape I cannot say the same thing because it didn't happen so I don't know. Would I hold the hand of any of my daughters (any of the 11)? Yes. If that was their choice I would stand beside them. If they chose to parent or place the child for adoption I'd stand beside them. It's not my choice to make.

The anti abortion crowd wants to make the choice for something that's not even viable outside the womb for women when it's really not their business. Worry about the women who chose to give birth to crack babies or HIV babies or the mother who lost her job and CPS took her five kids because she couldn't feed them. They're here, they really do need your protection. If there is a god and someone chooses abortion then she will answer for that. The thing the religious seem to forget is that it's not your place to judge anyone, it's your gods'.

But since you like data so very much;

The biggest percentage of abortions are performed long before the potential for viability is there. Add in that a large portion of these likely wouldn't have ended in live birth due to spontaneous abortions aka miscarriages.

Results: A total of 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2000 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.5% decrease from the 861,789 legal induced abortions reported by 48 reporting areas for 1999 and a 1.3% decrease for the same 48 reporting areas that reported in 1999. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 246 in 2000 (for the same 48 reporting areas as 1999), compared with 256 reported for 1999. This represents a 3.8% decline in the abortion ratio. The abortion rate (for the same 48 reporting areas as 1999) was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2000. This was also a 3.8% decrease from the rate reported for procedures performed during 1997--1999 for the same 48 reporting areas.
The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women aged <25 years (52%), women who were white (57%), and unmarried women (81%). Fifty-eight percent of all abortions for which gestational age was reported were performed at <8 weeks of gestation, and 88% were performed before 13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2000, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks of gestation. Few abortions were performed after 15 weeks of gestation; 4.3% were obtained at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% were obtained at >21 weeks. A total of 31 reporting areas submitted data stating that they performed medical (nonsurgical) procedures, making up 1.0% of all reported procedures from the 42 areas with adequate reporting on type of procedure.

Gee, I gave the numbers several pages back about the effect forcing women to carry pregnancies they did not want to term.. you had nothing to say to that because there's no way to argue it without the argument sounding stupid.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Less attention has been paid to the financial implications to states, businesses and women if governments impose policies that lead to increases in unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. The economic ramifications of such policies are important as the nation recovers from the worst recession since the Great Depression and governments work to reduce debts and deficits.
“There’s a simple math in place: more unintended pregnancies mean more public costs,” said Bill Albert, chief program officer at the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. “Especially for the deficit hawks, it is a penny-wise-pound-foolish strategy.”

“It doesn’t matter where you stand on abortion,” said Albert. “At the very least, efforts to restrict abortions should at least be coupled with stronger efforts to help women avoid unplanned pregnancies, but that is rarely the case.”

Even my estimates were off. I said:

The highest group getting an abortion is NOT the teens---it is the group that is 25 and older so we are not talking a scared HS kid that doesn't want to be another teen mother statistic. Now in 2001, the last year I could find consistent statistics for, there were 853,485 abortions performed in the US not counting NH, AK, and CA. If 95% of those carried to term you have 810,810+ live births in the 47 states. Of those live births statistically only 3 of every 100 is placed for adoption so 3% --we'll be generous and say 5% of the 810810 are placed for adoption that's 40,541 of the 810,810 bringing the total of children born to mothers who would have chosen to abort the child to 770,269 just in 47 states.

Say half of those end up on public assistance. Do you realize what would happen if we added an additional 370,000 people to the PA rolls? It wouldn't just be the child on public assistance either so you have to add in at least the mother which then takes the total back to the 770,269. Now even if you figure conservatively between child care, medicaid, WIC, food stamps and TANF a person receives $10,000 a year in benefits you are looking an increasing public assistance another $70 million dollars for every year they are on public assistance. I understand people need assistance and I don't mind that at all but I don't think our country could handle an additional $70 million a year in public assistance. Even if they are only on it for 2-3 years. Statistically there will be that many births per year so you're looking at $70 million a year EVERY YEAR on top of what we already have out there. Economically it's insane.

In reality the toll for just one state was:

Medicaid Costs

In Oklahoma, where Warden, 34, resides, Medicaid paid for the treatment and delivery costs for more than 70 percent of the 26,100 unintended pregnancies in 2006, the only year for which state-by-state data is available, according to Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, a peer-reviewed journal published by the Guttmacher Institute. For the Sooner State, which had the 10th-highest percentage of such births among states that year, the price tag for prenatal and post-partum care for the woman and infant was $55.6 million while the federal government’s share of those costs was $117.6 million. Nationwide, federal and state government costs for treating and delivering unintended pregnancies in 2006 was more than $11 billion.

But give them contraception and the costs go down. Imagine that.

Family Planning Savings

Publicly-funded family planning services save state and federal governments $4.3 billion each year, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Contraceptive use saves almost $19 billion in direct medical costs annually and reduces the occurrence of abortion, according to the campaign, a Washington-based nonprofit.
The effects of an unintended pregnancy on women are both personal and financial.

Oh yes, taxpayers. That's why we shouldn't allow abortions. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. :

Tony Lauinger, chairman of the Tulsa-based non-profit Oklahomans for Life, said the shrinking number of workers paying for the Social Security benefits of retirees could “absolutely” be solved by banning abortion.
“We would argue that our nation would be a healthier nation, a stronger nation, we’d have a stronger economy if we hadn’t aborted 54 million potential taxpayers over the past 39 years,” he said in an interview at the snack bar in the statehouse.

I have actually had a neuralgia, AKA, "Suicide Disease" before and know what excruciating pain is like. I was fortunate that it was curable in my case. Even in battle, I would not conduct a "mercy killing" just over pain. I would knock them out, unless death was imminent.

But all this is beside the point. The "pain" associated with raising a child can not reasonably be assumed to reach even close to these sensationalist appeals. The concept of a mother wishing she were dead because of her child; or a child wishing he were dead because of his poverty, does not mesh with the reality of a healthy mind in the American society. The situations you are speculating on would be cases of severe depression or other psychoses; and unless you diagnosed them in the baby you have no justification assuming they will have this issue.

fair enough. it was a tangent. it really doesn't matter as to my greater point, but you simply won't let any point you see as refutable go.

And I answered you. There was no source cited, just text. And still, merely an historians fallacy.

ah, then you didn't really To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts., for excluding the one mistake i made, i've always included a source. maybe after all you're not paying as much attention as you would have us believe.

I will label it "tit for tat."

Well more of a broken window fallacy because I was facetious about people lining up for the job, but thanks for trying at least.

Obviously there exists exceptions to every single law, but now you're arguing the Nirvana fallacy. If my solution doesn't save every single mother then we keep killing the babies. It is very possible for an effective law to protect both mother and child without forcing an ultimatum on the life of the child.

again, we've gone off on a tangent; this is not the central point. people will keep killing the babies regardless. it's just that if they can't legally obtain clean, safe medical care in the process, they may also kill themselves, intentionally or unintentionally.

i don't see a way to reconcile protecting the rights of mother and unborn when one seems to be in direct conflict with the other.

Do you read this first? Or do you just browse for "feel bad" words?

Nothing in these articles draws any convincing arguments against adoption in general. Australia took the child away and the genealogy away, which caused the problem.

sure; adoption could be improved.

There are still those who believe that adopted people grow up with no problems or difficulties, and that mothers who are ill-equipped to care for their children, emotionally or financially, should relinquish their babies for adoption.

Frame, 1999

In an article in the Melbourne Age in 1993, Louise Bellamy reports that: Brother Alex McDonald, a Jesuit who has worked with homeless young people in St Kilda for 10 years, says of the 147 suicides of young people caused by drugs and abuse in the area over the past decade, 142 came from adoption backgrounds.

In the early 1980s in Australia Winkler and van Keppel conducted a national study of 213 women who had relinquished a first child for adoption when they were young and single. The study, published in 1984, found that the effects of relinquishment on the mother are negative and long-lasting. Relinquishing mothers, compared to a carefully matched comparison group of women, had significantly more problems of psychological adjustment.

In 1986 Dr John Condon, from Flinders Medical Centre in South Australia, presented a study of 20 relinquishing mothers that demonstrated a very high incidence of pathological grief reactions, predominantly depression and psychosomatic illness. For the majority of these women, their sadness, anger and guilt had not diminished over the considerable number of years since their relinquishment.

After the implementation of the 1965 Adoption of Children Act in 1967, adoptions continued to increase, reaching a peak of around 4,000 in NSW in 1971-72. Adoptions began to decrease in the mid-1970s, not because adoption workers acknowledged that what they were doing was harmful, but because of the wider availability of contraception and abortion, changed social attitudes toward single motherhood, and better financial support to single parents.

at the same time:

Female suicide rates in Australia have remained relatively constant since 1900, except for a gradual increase through the 1950s and 1960s, when the rate doubled. By 1985 the rate had declined to previous levels. (Hassan 1995). This peak in the female suicide rate in Australia coincides with the peak rate of adoptions.

now, i've also looked into resources on women who have had abortions. it impresses me that relinquishing a child after birthing it is emotionally, psychologically, and physically traumatic for biological reasons; the hormonal connectivity developed during prolonged pregnancy and during and after birth.

comparing that to the obvious feelings of guilt, shame, fear, isolation, confusion, anxiety, and myriad other emotions which are not the result of the same, but a consequence of being unable to reconcile their religious beliefs with the choice they felt they needed to make.

but it must have been a pretty compelling need, to make them go against their personal beliefs and that of their family to go through with it. it's a shame anyone ever has to, for whatever reason, but it's better than any alternatives that exist today, as i see it. less suffering in the long run. bigger picture, you'd say.

The right to choose for yourself. Not the right to force anyone else to have an abortion.

Being a creature of logic, you'll have to explain why every injustice including filicide should be an option in this world. Especially since neither court nor science supports that option as an absolute. By any reasonable impression your only support lies in Godhate. Just scroll back. Who is the first one to mention God every single time? Pro-choice. You only exist here to prove your point, not serve any "noble cause" of justice. That's why you're impervious to all logic and reason. That's why Godhate is your first and fastest coping mechanism. I have been told to keep morals and God out of it over a dozen times, and you will never once find me use either in any argument.

It should be obvious what a double-standard you express when you fight for a "right to choose" (a moral value), and fight against a "right to life" by screaming "MORALS ARE BAD, THERE IS NO GOD, MY BELIEF WINS!!!

But please. Do try to argue against the right to choose. I bet you can't. I bet you can only argue against the right to make this choice.

Roe v. Wade.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.

The fact that I talk about right to choose and you about a right to live doesn't matter, because we both agree that these two rights are important. We merely disagree on how they apply to a particular case.

<fight against a right for life>

Only a limitation to it, which is, the application of this right to fetuses beneath 20 weeks (or more, or less, depending on the person).

I'm military. I know more than any there are reasons to limit the right to life. None of your arguments prophesying some dismal future nor mommies paycheck qualify. Everyone in this world gets a chance. I'm all about live and let live.

Which explains your conflict. The moral to kill or torture is private to you?
The moral value of theft and rape are private to you?
The moral value of confinement is private to you?
Is there any moral at all that a society should share in common since life has no value to you?

ah, then you didn't really To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts., for excluding the one mistake i made, i've always included a source. maybe after all you're not paying as much attention as you would have us believe.

I already responded to this video. You can't deny that that is just one HUGE appeal to emotion. But I won't play the pro-choice game. Saying something is a fallacy does not directly refute an informal fallacy like an appeal to emotion (although the Choice crowd want to believe it does)

You have offered no compelling reason to believe abortion laws today could not be crafted to prevent most of those situations. 40+ years have passed. Laws work.

again, we've gone off on a tangent; this is not the central point. people will keep killing the babies regardless. it's just that if they can't legally obtain clean, safe medical care in the process, they may also kill themselves, intentionally or unintentionally.

Again you're trying to convince me that laws don't work. That's a real hard sell if all you have is 40 year-old data.

I don't see a way to reconcile protecting the rights of mother and unborn when one seems to be in direct conflict with the other.

I don't see any reason not to try. Roe v. Wade is incomplete. He determined the both the baby and the mother have rights. Kill the baby anytime you want isn't the only option available. The privacy argument is wholly pathetic.

Had 2 abortions personally, both pregnancies were a huge shock in how close together they were and how "fertile" I was. I went through with both with relative ease and a lot of support from my boyfriend. I don't regret it, I'm just to young/poor to give my life up to having a kid and I am very happy I made that decision. I don't see the big deal with it, it was relatively easy, and minimal pain and stress. Anyways, Pro choice here, I would do it again if it happened, but I am on the pill since the second one... : /

...Searching.... term "seperation" ... [ To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ]

...RESULTS: 0 found.

There is a new and highly sophisticated tool you should investigate. It's called spell check. You might have more fruitful results when you attempt to use a search engine by seeding it with correctly spelled words.

The exact wordings for many things are not in the Constitution. For instance, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle but the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To narrow the focus, would you deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Guess what? That phrase isn't in the Constitution either.

On separation of church and state not being stated in the Constitution, this is the favorite whine of the religious right: "But, separation of church and state is not found in the Constitution so it can't be a valid argument."

Sit child. It's time for a much needed history lesson.

The phrase "separation of church and state" first appeared in 1644 with Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America. In his book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution, he wrote, "A hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world".

The next use of the phrase is the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists previously cited.

This brings us to James Madison, the author of the First Amendment. In the beginning, Madison didn't believe the Constitution needed any amendments because he didn't believe the federal government would ever become powerful enough to need them. It was Thomas Jefferson, his mentor, who convinced him to change his mind. Madison originally proposed twelve amendments that ultimately became the ten amendments making up the U.S. Bill of Rights. He later commented in 1819 that "the [religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."

In 1879, the first case involving separation of church and state was heard by the Supreme Court in the case of To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.. In his decision, Justice Stephen Johnson Field wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." The Justice cited Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Then, in 1947 in the case of To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.. Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." He also stated, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Since 1879, the Supreme Court has heard 15 cases involving separation of church and state issues. In all cases, the Court upheld the separation. I would make the case that much like the right to a fair trial and religious liberty, the separation of church and state is firmly established as a principle of law in the United States as having been repeatedly tried, tested and confirmed.

Don't forget the important part. US Government has no power to stop any religious worship anywhere. To quote it exactly:

You're misreading and not understanding what the Constitution says and, more importantly, what it doesn't say. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that the US Government has a desire to stop religious worship. The main thrust of the first clause of the First Amendment is to prohibit the establishment of a government endorsed religion. Notice that the framers place religious freedom first and foremost because at the time the Constitution was being written, the writers were gravely concerned that they would end up with a state religion and all its burdens similar to the dynamic of the Anglican Church of England. They intentionally wrote a secular document that would prohibit the creation of a state religion.

Mythology does not establish any morals.

That's true but you neglect to realize that, in this instance, religion and mythology are synonymous. Religion thinks it needs to establish a basis for morality but fails in epic fashion. All one has to do is read some of the tracts about the supposed paragons of virtue to understand they are miserable examples and do nothing to confirm they are moral beings let alone someone to model our lives after. Not everyone needs a sky daddy to encourage them to behave in a moral manner. Having a conscience is sufficient.

Well, to be exact, yes. That would and is a complete violation of our Constitutional rights.

Are you trying to say enforcing the Constitution, particularly the separation of church and state through the First Amendment, is a violation of our Constitutional rights? If so, then you clearly fail to understand the contents and meaning of the Constitution.

Yes. The establishment clause would be violated as soon as the prayer became "official school policy." Just like the teacher gets yanked for telling the class to stop praying. That's the First in action baby!

Under certain circumstances, that's a false analogy. In a catholic or fishtian school, yes, I could see that happening but, no, not in a secular school. You clearly misunderstand the application and implications of the First Amendment.

Isn't is cool that by preventing the establishment of any religion it established the accidentalist religion as the national mythology?

The First Amendment is not preventing the establishment of any religion, just a state sponsored one. If you're trying to add the jeebus as martyr myth to the conversation, that's not part of the discussion. Such an addition is merely a vain attempt at deflection in order to hide a vacuity of substance in your point and summarily dismissed.

Slop on a hot rock; a man-imagined creator infinately stupider than any other ever conceived, by definition.

If you'd taken the time to research any of my earlier posts on religion, it should be quite clear to you that I fully embrace the idea that man invented religion and that religion as a whole is a ludicrous concept. So what's your point?

Just scroll back. Who is the first one to mention God every single time? Pro-choice. You only exist here to prove your point, not serve any "noble cause" of justice. That's why you're impervious to all logic and reason. That's why Godhate is your first and fastest coping mechanism. I have been told to keep morals and God out of it over a dozen times, and you will never once find me use either in any argument.

You don't need to need to say anything about your god and morals....your post and "logic" reek of it.

I'm all about live and let live.

Not if you are pro-life and want to control people.

Sorry sister. That right stops when the rights of others get involved. Your human body and ONLY your human body is yours to destroy.

So why are you sticking your nose in it with your pro-life crap?

Saying something is a fallacy does not directly refute an informal fallacy....

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.

Done.

Epic fail because it also says:

The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

You have tried to shoot down the absolute FACT that women who want an abortion, even if it is illegal except in the cases of rape and incest when in reality it is that VERY thing that lead to Roe v. Wade:

In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. (McCorvey would give birth before the case was decided.)

Granted her attempt failed however, people are smarter now and I see false police reports every day.

In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was the result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped. "Rape" is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in this caseThe district court ruled in McCorvey's favor on the legal merits of her case, and declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion. The district court's decision was based upon the 9th Amendment, and the court relied upon a concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, finding in the decision for a right to privacy.

The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny

The Court asserted that that the government had two competing interests – protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life". Following its earlier logic, the Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health. The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician's right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general. The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.

First trimester abortions are MORE safe than childbirth, in case you missed it.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.

So, the right to choose (abortion), but within limits. Which is exactly what I was talking about, and corresponds to the pro-choice position I have always defended. Did you have a point...?

Pro-life. I'm glad I wasn't aborted. Women have the right to choose who they have sex with, but not the right to kill or appoint someone to kill an innocent being. If they see beauty in their own life and the lives of others, then why don't they see beauty in a (possible) newborn child that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for them? Who has the right to kill you?

Pro-life. I'm glad I wasn't aborted. Women have the right to choose who they have sex with, but not the right to kill or appoint someone to kill an innocent being. If they see beauty in their own life and the lives of others, then why don't they see beauty in a (possible) newborn child that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for them? Who has the right to kill you?

Before I was born? My mother. However, I was a planned pregnancy.

Life is not all beautiful. People do choose whom they have sex with but condoms break, pills fail, rings fall out. Abortion is a choice too, just not a popular one.
______

As an aside to this entire debate, our county's abortion numbers will likely increase exponentially in the near future considering the idiots that run our school board just voted to teach abstinence only sex ed. Thus the reason I teach sex ed at home.

Life is not all beautiful. People do choose whom they have sex with but condoms break, pills fail, rings fall out. Abortion is a choice too, just not a popular one.
______

As an aside to this entire debate, our county's abortion numbers will likely increase exponentially in the near future considering the idiots that run our school board just voted to teach abstinence only sex ed. Thus the reason I teach sex ed at home.

I honestly don't see a purpose to sex besides reproduction, though. I know that there's this mysterious drive to have sex, but I don't know why it's there. Also, it seems that life is beautiful enough for you to not have killed yourself. Do you want to be alive? Is death more beautiful than life?

If the act of having a baby is what is feared the most, then I could almost understand abortion. But I don't think that's the case. Mothering/fathering a child is feared more, and that's why adoption makes sense.
______

On the side, I hope that the likely will not happen. Schools need to know their purpose.

Also, it seems that life is beautiful enough for you to not have killed yourself. Do you want to be alive? Is death more beautiful than life?

Obviously I will not speak for JustMel, but the only reasons I'm still here are that I would prefer to see our daughter properly launched in life. And if anyone can manage to find a way for her to overcome the health challenges she has, it would be me. The other reason is my religious beliefs don't allow for checking out early.

Other than that, I'm more than prepared to go.

If the act of having a baby is what is feared the most, then I could almost understand abortion. But I don't think that's the case. Mothering/fathering a child is feared more, and that's why adoption makes sense.

Having the baby is not what women I know have feared the most. It was the aftermath, even if you put the baby up for adoption. This may have changed by now, but when I was in my early childbearing years just getting pregnant when you were married would lose you your job. Being visibly pregnant when not married would lose you your job, any education, your circle of friends and family, and you might just as well move to another town if you lived someplace small enough to be blackballed from any means of supporting yourself. If you were lucky you might find a nice guy willing to "make an honest woman of you" so you would have some means of support. It may or may not be the actual father. Men could always just walk away from their mistakes.

Just for the record: I'm adopted.

As for bc, whenever that topic comes up people go off on stuff about "choices" as if not having sex within a marriage is actually an option or married sex never results in an unplanned pregnancy or as if bc is 100% so it's all "someone made a poor choice." The someone is always the woman, of course. Hey, I got pregnant on the pill -- twice. I used it as directed. Stuff like that happens.

As far as public policy about bc goes, since I'm a fiscal conservative I believe the state should give bc and education about how to use it free to anyone who asks for it. Because sorry, the math supports that policy as the most fiscally conservative.

The only arguments against bc are religious. Let those who are religious decide for themselves within their own religious community and leave the rest of us outside their community alone (whether we're religious or not.)

Again, the constant "adoption is easy" crap makes me want to punch people in the throat, rip out their vocal chords and wrap them around their head.

I've been there. As a birth mother and it's not easy. It's not something you just do and walk away from. You wonder and have questions every fucking day. Hell every hour most days. You remember their birthday, you hang a stocking for them at Christmas, you wonder about their costumes at Halloween, you wonder what they made their parents for mothers and fathers day, you wonder about their friends, if they have a dog/cat/hamster/imaginary friend, you wonder about all the things you see other kids doing. You wonder if they hate you for the choice you made, if their parents even told them they were adopted, if they have any concept how much you love them. You wonder if you'll ever see them or know they're okay. I got lucky. I only had to ask my questions daily for twenty years. Then I got the answers. Now I have a relationship with my daughter and my grandson. Some women can't live through the constant questions daily. Some go on to have other children and try to forget, some go insane, some kill themselves and some have a dozen other kids by a dozen fathers to try to forget the one child they can't hold. Some choose to never have more children so they don't have to feel that pain again. When I had my second daughter I was so afraid I wasn't going to get to bring her home from the hospital. It was an irrational fear but it was there until the day I put her in the car to leave the hospital. Sometimes we choose adoption because for us there is no other choice and that isn't much of a choice is it?

Adoption is not some magical bandaid. It's a choice. Just like abortion. It's a valid choice for some. It's a personal choice for all.

I never said it was easy, I just said it makes sense. I have no idea about the emotions people have after giving up a child or adopting one. If you want to adopt, you probably can, but you are taking a risk. You take risks when you have sex, when you give up a child, and when you adopt. I just can't stop thinking about how everyone on this thread could have been aborted and could be "swapped out" by people who could have not been aborted. Isn't life good, even if you deal with pain every day?

Oh, it turns out you were aborted and I've been writing to a brick wall with these posts. (And I've just imagined what you've said)

But I don't want to argue on here. It takes way too much time and effort.

No it doesn't always make sense. It makes sense for some. Abortion makes sense for others and it's not anyone's business other than the person who makes the choice. You can think that life is great and that's your option that doesn't make it so for everyone.

Swapped out? Nice thought. I can think of a few who should be swapped out. I can think of quite a few poster children for abortion.

I never said it was easy, I just said it makes sense. I have no idea about the emotions people have after giving up a child or adopting one. If you want to adopt, you probably can, but you are taking a risk. You take risks when you have sex, when you give up a child, and when you adopt. I just can't stop thinking about how everyone on this thread could have been aborted and could be "swapped out" by people who could have not been aborted. Isn't life good, even if you deal with pain every day?

It would have been more correct to say "I have no idea about what women go through in pregnancy at all, yet that doesn't stop me from forming an opinion that they need to be controlled by me for their own benefit" because that seems to be the jist of your posts.